CIVIL PROCEDURE ROUND UP: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP: NOVEMBER 2020
This round up covers specific posts and articles in relation to civil procedure from November 2020. COSTS ACL – Lacuna identified in criminal legal aid rules for civil committal proceedings ACL – QOCS does not apply to pre-issue applications, court rules ACL…
HOURLY RATES ALLOWED SHOULD BE INCREASED, AT LEAST, BY INFLATION: APPEAL AGAINST SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS ALLOWED.
I am grateful to Sean Linley for drawing my attention to the judgment of HHJ Hodge QC in Cohen v Fine & Ors [2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch).That judgment has some interesting things to say in relation to current hourly rates…
“WHEN MUST AN UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANT ACCEPT “NO” FOR AN ANSWER?”: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Wingfield, R (on the application of) v Canterbury City Council & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1588 the Court of Appeal considered the provisions of CPR 52.30 which provide an extremely limited chance of persuading a court to reconsider a…
PROVING THINGS 188: PROVING A WARNING WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE: PEDESTRIAN HIT BY CRICKET BALL LOSES CASE ON APPEAL
In Lewis v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3205 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart overturned a decision in favour of claimant who had been struck by a cricket ball whilst walking near a cricket pitch. “… the defendant was…
PROVING THINGS 187: THE CAMERA MAY LIE: THE IMPORTANCE OF DATES ON PHOTOGRAPHS
Today we are journeying into the Family Court to look at the judgment of Mrs Justice Judd in K v G [2020] EWHC 3209 (Fam). It shows the importance of obtaining metadata in relation to documents. In this case the…
APPEALS, ISSUES OF FACT AND SAILING IN DIFFERENT OCEANS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE DECISION TODAY
In Hewes v West Hertfordshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1523 the Court of Appeal reiterated the difficulties faced by an appellant attempting to argue that the judge had erred in relation to findings of the…
CLAIMANT’S CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE IT SAID TWO CONTRADICTORY THINGS: “JANUS-FACED” PLEADINGS NOT ALLOWED
The judgment of Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Betesh Partnership -v- Evans [2020] EWHC 1589 (QB) contains interesting observations on the need for a claimant to plead a case that is not inconsistent. I am working and citing from the…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, APPEALS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: CLAIMANT’S PROPOSED APPEAL COMES TO GRIEF
The judgment of Mr Justice Lavender in Kamara v Builder Depot Ltd [2020] EWHC 3046 (QB) contains a catalogue of material in relation to procedural issues and appeals. However, here, I want to concentrate upon the issues relating to fundamental…
COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS AWARD FOR AS TO COSTS ON ACCOUNT: WHAT IS A “REASONABLE SUM”? (£325,000 IN THIS CASE)
In Mousavi-Khalkali v Abrishamchi & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1493 we have a rare case of the Court of Appeal considering an appeal on an order that a party pay a sum on account of costs. THE CASE The Court…
SWIFT -v- CARPENTER: THE SUBSEQUENT COSTS JUDGMENT: AN ADDITIONAL £65,095.65; INDEMNITY COSTS & INCREASED INTERESTS: THE WISDOM OF MAKING A PART 36 OFFER WHEN APPEALING
On the day when it is announced that the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in the case of Swift -v- Carpenter it is interesting to look at the subsequent judgment on costs given today in Swift v Carpenter…
THE DANGERS OF APPLYING FOR NON-PARTY COSTS ORDERS: THE APPLICANT HAS TO PAY THE PRICE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In the judgment today in Deepchand & Anor v Sooben [2020] EWCA Civ 1409 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that there be no order for costs when a party made an unsuccessful application for a non-party costs order. …
PART 36: JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO ALLOW ENHANCED INTEREST WHEN CLAIMANT BEAT ITS OWN OFFER: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In the judgment today in Telefonica UK Ltd v The Office of Communications [2020] EWCA Civ 1374 the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial judge not to award additional interest on damages and costs in a case…
SOLICITOR’S FEES NOT RECOVERABLE AFTER THEY HAD TERMINATED THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Toms (t/a Goldbergs Solicitors) v Brannan [2020] EWHC 2866 (QB) Mr Justice Griffiths dismissed a solicitor’s appeal against a decision that he was not able to recover costs from a client after a conditional fee agreement had been terminated….
CLAIMANT IN LOW-VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CASE NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON EXPERT REPORTS WHEN PROTOCOL NOT COMPLIED WITH: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
In Mason -v- Laing (Bradford County Court 20th January 2020 Mason v Laing) HHJ Gosnell held that a claimant that failed to comply with the requirements as to instructing experts prior to a Stage 3 hearing could not rely on…
IF YOU FIGHT AN “ALL OR NOTHING CASE” THEN YOU CAN’T COMPLAIN IF YOU GET NOTHING
In Amin v Amin & Ors [2020] EWHC 2675 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee made an important observation about the way in which parties present their case. It may benefit some litigants to put their case on an alternative basis. THE…
THE CARPENTER DECISION: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES: FAIR DAMAGES “NOT A PENNY MORE BUT NOT A PENNY LESS”
I have written before about how judges regularly go back to the basic principles of damages when faced with challenging issues in relation to personal injury damages. To a large extent this happened in the Court of Appeal decision in Swift…
TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE LATE WITNESS STATEMENT
In Bromford Housing Association Ltd v Nightingale [2020] EWHC 2648 Mr Justice Cavangh upheld a decision not to allow a claimant in possession proceedings to adduce evidence late. In a “rolled up” hearing he dismissed the claimant’s application for permission…
WE LOST, BUT WE STILL WANT 90% OF OUR COSTS: CLAIMANT’S UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL: A DEVELOPING FIELD OF LAW?
The judgment of Mr Justice Miles in Terracorp Ltd v Mistry & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2623 (Ch) contains an interesting review of the principles relating to costs where a party has failed on a number of issues. It…
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND THE PRACTICAL JOKER: THE “LOWEST FORM OF HUMOUR” DOES NOT LEAD TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY
In Chell v Tarmac Cement And Lime Ltd [2020] EWHC 2613 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer upheld a decision that an employer was not vicariously liable for a practical joke in the workplace. “The practical joke must be the lowest…
“A MOST UNUSUAL CASE”: “A JUDGE’S DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN INVITATION TO TREAT”
In FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63 Sir James Munby warned against trying to re-open cases after judgment has been given. There were several attempts to re-open the judgment after it was given. It is the only judgment…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND WASTED COSTS AGAINST A SOLICITOR: THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVE CAUSATION
The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Razaq v Iqbal & Ors [2019] EWHC 3924 (QB) provides an interesting example of a failure to prove causation in a wasted costs application. A solicitor had been negligent in failing to pass…
VIDEO EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED AT TRIAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL DISMISSED: A “STORM IN A TEACUP”
In Wilcox v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 2555 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed an appeal against a refusal by a defendant to allow video evidence to be adduced at trial. The evidence was not relevant and…
FATAL ACCIDENT: LEGAL COSTS OF ATTENDING INQUEST WERE RECOVERABLE: THE DANGERS TO DEFENDANTS OF MAKING AN EQUIVOCAL “ADMISSION”
In the judgment today in Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service v Veevers [2020] EWHC 2550 (Comm) HHJ Pearce upheld a decision that the legal costs incurred in attending an inquest were recoverable as costs in a subsequent action for…
THE DIFFICULTY IN APPEALING A DENTON TYPE DECISION
The second issue in judgment of HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd v Langhelle [2020] EWHC 2500 (Ch) was whether the appellant was able to appeal the District Judge’s refusal to grant relief…
UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL “TO ESTABLISH THE LIBERTY OF INEBRIATED ENGLISH SUBJECTS TO BE ALLOWED TO LIE UNDISTURBED IN THEIR OWN VOMIT SOAKED CLOTHING”
In Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2020] EWHC 2472 (QB) Mr Justice Turner dismissed the claimant’s appeal. The claimant complained that police officers had removed her outer clothing and provided her with dry clothing at a time when…
JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN AND NOT TO ALLOW SINGLE WITNESS IN PLACE OF JOINT WITNESS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) [2020] EWHC 2386 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer refused a claimant’s appeal where it was argued that a trial judge should have adjourned a trial and given the claimant permission to rely on…
THE TREATMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: ANOTHER CASE WHERE A JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF A DEFENDANT IS OVERTURNED
There has been much online discussion about the impact that the decision in Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) will have in relation to food poisoning cases and more generally. That case related specifically to the treatment of…
WHEN SHOULD A LITIGATION FRIEND BE LIABLE FOR COSTS? INTERESTING COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Glover v Barker & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1112 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision where costs were awarded against a litigation friend. It is a particularly important judgment for those acting as litigation friends for defendants. THE…
LEXLAW -v- ZUBERI: PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED
I wrote in July about the decision in Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2020] EWHC 1855 (Ch) (10 July 2020) in relation to the validity of a damages based agreement. Practitioners may like to know that permission to appeal has been granted by…
EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: THE TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT OVERTURN CONCLUSIONS OF A “UNCONTROVERTED” EXPERT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
NB THIS DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT IS CONSIDERED HERE. In Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the question of the approach of…
PROVING THINGS 181: THE ART GALLERY, THE MILKMAN AND THE 1992 REGULATIONS…
It is rare for this blog to look at Scottish cases. However the judgment of the Sheriff Appeal Court in APPEAL BY ANDREW WRIGHT v NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND [2020] ScotSAC Civ 6 raises an issue that is common to…
PROVING THINGS 178: PROVING PREJUDICE: THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
There is another aspect of the Court of Appeal decision in Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 that justifies closer examination. That is the court’s observations on the judge’s finding of prejudice. The Court of Appeal…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ALLOWED WHEN JUDGE HAD RESERVATIONS AS TO WHETHER STRIKING OUT ORDER SHOULD EVER HAVE BEEN MADE
In Barakat v Greycourt Ltd [2020] EWHC 643 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt granted relief from sanctions to an appellant whose appeal had been struck out without notice. One thing of note in this judgment is the order striking out the…
HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS
In Pegg v Webb & Anor [2020] EWHC 2095 (QB) tMr Justice Spencer overturned a finding of a trial judge that a claimant had not been fundamentally dishonest. The claimant had been dishonest in the failures to give full disclosure…
USING RTA PROTOCOL AND PART 8 PROCEDURE INAPPROPRIATELY DID NOT LEAD TO ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
The Court of Appeal today gave judgment in Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 and overturned the decision to strike out an action because it had been issued inappropriately using the portal and Part 8…
OPENING LINES OF JUDGMENTS: “DUMB, DUMB, DUMB”: “WE SHOULD AVOID DOING DUMB THINGS. ESPECIALLY ONES THAT ARE DUMB”
I often do an annual review of opening lines of judgments. This review has never had any jurisdictional limits. For that reason I am able to review the judgment yesterday of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth…
IN-HOUSE COSTS RECOVER ON ASSESSMENT: THE INDEMNITY PRINCIPLE IS NOT BREACHED
The question on the indemnity principle and in-house lawyers was another costs issue considered by Mostyn J in Kuznetsov, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Camden [2019] EWHC 3910 (Admin). The judge rejected an argument that the successful…
“MY LADY – THE MICROPHONE IS STILL ON”: THERE IS A LESSON HERE FOR US ALL …
The judgment of the Court of Appeal today in C (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 987 is an example of a problem that abounds in these days of remote and “hybrid” hearings. The Court allowed an appeal against a refusal…
CIVIL EVIDENCE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF: WHEN WHO BEARS THE BURDEN CAN HAVE A MAJOR EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF A CASE
The judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Emmanuel v Avison & Ors [2020] EWHC 1696 (Ch) contains some interesting observations about the burden of proof. The burden lay with the claimant, despite the fact that if different proceedings had been…
CORONAVIRUS LAW: APPEAL ON POSSESSION ISSUES STAYED BY PD51Z: NO SALAMI SLICING OF CASES WHERE A LANDLORD IS SEEKING POSSESSION
In the judgment in TFS Stores Ltd v The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Ltd & Ors[2020] EWCA Civ 833 the Court of Appeal (by a majority) stayed a number of appeals, holding that they were possession proceedings…
COUNSEL’S ADVICE IS NOT EVIDENCE: REALLY, ITS NOT.
There is an interesting consideration of the role of counsel’s advice in the judgment of HHJ Vincent in AZ v BZ (financial remedies appeal) [2020] EWFC 28. In a financial remedies hearing, a judge was wrong to firstly admit, and…
LIFE EXPECTANCY IS RARELY A SIMPLE MATTER OF STATISTICS: APPLYING FOR A “VARIATION” OF DIRECTIONS: YOU SHOULD HAVE APPEALED
In the judgment this morning in Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1543 (QB) Jay J rejected an application by the defendant to rely on expert evidence in relation to life expectancy. This judgment is important…
THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES 80: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Two years on this is a good time to recap on…
CORONAVIRUS LAW: POSSESSION APPEAL HEARD IN STAY PERIOD: JUDGMENT WILL NOT BE GIVEN UNTIL END OF THE STAY
The judgment of Mr Justice Cavanagh yesterday in Bromford Housing Association Ltd v Nightingale & Anor [2020] EWHC 1532 (QB) is another variant of the issues relating to the stay of possession proceedings. In this case the judge declined to…
CORONAVIRUS LAW: STAY LIFTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HANDING DOWN APPEAL JUDGMENT
In Copeland v Bank of Scotland Plc [2020] EWHC 1441 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman lifted the stay on possession proceedings for the purpose of handing down a judgment on appeal. THE CASE The action related to possession proceedings brought…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED: CPR 3.9 PROPERLY APPLIED IS ARTICLE 6 COMPLIANT
The previous two posts on this blog have been warning against complacency in relation to the Denton principles. This is the third in that series. In Magee v Willmott [2020] EWHC 1378 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip allowed an appeal in…
ACCEPTING AN OFFER DURING A HEARING: CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES, NOT PART 36, APPLY: OFFER DID NOT LAPSE AT THE DOOR OF THE COURT
Offers of settlement can, and often are, made outside the ambit of Part 36. In MEF v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1300 (QB) Mr Justice Morris considered issues relating to late acceptance of offers. The case shows…
EVALUATING EVIDENCE ON APPEAL: THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT READILY DISPLACE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
I am grateful to Christopher Kardahji from Irwin Mitchell solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Lenord -v- First Manchester Limited [2020] EWHC 982 (QB). The judgment contains a detailed analysis of the…
AUTOMATIC STAY OF POSSESSION HEARINGS APPLIES TO APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION THIS MORNING
In London Borough of Hackney -v- Okoro [2020] EWCA Civ 681 the Court of Appeal found that the automatic stay on possession proceedings also applies to appeals against possession orders. THE CASE The Court of Appeal were asked…
ALDRED -V- CHAM: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED BY THE SUPREME COURT
In November last year I reported on the case of Aldred -v- Cham [2019] EWCA Civ 1780, in relation to the recoverability of counsel’s fees in child approval cases. I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose who informs me…
You must be logged in to post a comment.